Augmented Gearsman

Amrel's page

259 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rule says:

"the attack deals damage as normal and also adds the appropriate amount of falling damage"

If you use feather fall I don't think there really is an appropriate amount of falling damage because you wouldn't be taking any. The whole feat is based around you transferring your momentum from falling into an attack, but using feather fall you don't have any momentum to transfer, so I would say no as well.


Chess Pwn wrote:
If you had it active before changing it goes away. If you activate it after changing then your new form has the benefits. All forms can US.

+1


Tremorsense would work, it is exactly like blindsense with the requirement that whatever you pinpoint must be touching the ground. The rules text specifically states that "A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground."

The rules don't ever say how sensitive someone with tremorsense is, or that there is a level of vibrations that are required to trip the ability. Someone with tremorsense is literally so sensitive to vibrations that they automatically sense any creature in contact with the ground. Whether or not that's from breathing, or blinking or smacking something doesn't matter.

Monsters with tremorsense are balanced to be useful/challenging assuming that the abilities work like the rules say they do. When you change that you are either making a monster weak or taking something away from your player.

If you're having balance issues talk to your player and see if you two cant come to some sort of agreement, or use enemies that act as a counter to his elemental. Its almost never a good idea to add your own requirements based on you're own personal logic. It will only discourage your player from doing anything outside of the box in the future.

I would think that popping its head out of the earth would require a stealth check, but I would think that he would get a pretty big bonus for being almost totally concealed.

As for the AAO, gliding up wouldn't provoke. According to the rules an AAO happens when you move out of an enemy's threatened square, or when you take a "distracting action" that diverts your attention from the battle, not when an enemy notices something obvious. An AAO is all about the person on the receiving end doing something that causes them to lose their focus.

In this case moving up from your glide is the same thing as walking into an opponents square. In both cases you don't have anything taking your focus away from your battle.

Moving out of an opponents square with your glide might provoke if you went farther than 5 ft.


1) There isn't anything keeping you from using the feat more than once per day, you just have to have enough day left after you're done being possessed by the spirit. As for making another choice, it depends on what you mean, but according to the feat you only get a new type of spirit when you take the feat again. So if you've only taken it once, you can only have one kind of spirit. Since you only get the bonus and the seance boon, there really isn't anything else to pick (since I think the bonuses those give you are the same)

2) The spirit gains no influence over you ever. Partially because it starts with no influence, but also because you gain no spirit powers to use with the spirit as per the feat.

3) There is nothing that says the spirit summoned with this feat is ever the same, it just says of a type, so I don't think it has to be. You're gm might make that happen, but you certainly have no influence over it.

4) it only calls out the spirit class feature as being disallowed, so its probably fine to use both feats at once.

5) It could go either way with your dm, but just by the rules I would say no. Mainly because in the spirit class feature it mentions that you can do the seance granted by that feature with your allies, but this feat makes no mention of allowing you to do the same.

6)The top line says select one spirit of legends available to a medium so I would think that if it is restricted then the spirit is not available to you.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Chess Pwn wrote:
well is it affecting slam attacks or affecting me, and any attack I make? As written it seems to be the second. But I'm curious what others think.

Sorry for the confusion. What I mean is that dutiful strike normally augments the phantom's slam attacks. Specifically it gives a +2 bonus to the phantom's attack rolls.

The rules for the archetype state that:

"If the ability normally augments only a phantom’s slam attacks, it instead applies to the ectoplasmic tendrils that the spiritualist can sprout using his ectoplasmic bonded manifestation."

In this case dutiful strike fits that bill, so you would get a +2 bonus to your tendrils and they would act as if they were one size larger. However, since the rules don't change any other part of the ability, it would only apply when you get attacked, since the trigger for the ability is "When a creature makes an attack against the phantom's master".


I think this would be a case where the Dutiful Strike is an ability that "augments the phantom's slam attacks", and so it would augment your tendrils. Since nothing else about the ability changes it still triggers whenever the master is attacked.


There are two ways to read this. The first, which is the most accurate as far as the text goes (but that doesn't make much sense), is that you go in order of the description. Whichever template you qualify first for is the one you get. I this case it means the order is celestial < entropic < fiendixh < resolute.

The other option, and the one I think makes more sense (but is a little looser in the text), is that you can pick whichever template you meet the requirements for. For example, if you were lawful good you could summon with the lawful or celestial template. If you were chaotic evil you could summon entropic or fiendish.

Additionally, based on the wording of the rules I think its clear that the neutral option (that allows you to pick any) only applies when you are true neutral, as the rules line lists out every other alignment possibility beforehand.


Area damage that happens every round usually occurs when the creature starts his/her turn in the area (after the initial casting). I would think that's how it would work for this spell.


_Ozy_ wrote:
According to the burn ability, it triggers when natural weapons or an unarmed attack hit. A grapple is neither of those.

So what we have so far is that burn is only triggered when attacking, or when being attacked via natural or unarmed methods. In this case, moving into a square is also neither of those, so the elemental wouldn't just be able to charge through webbing (as walking into the webbing would not trigger the burn ability, since it is neither attacking or being attacked by the web).

It seems that according to the rules for burn, the only way an elemental can move through the web is to attack it as normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the elemental chose to attack the web, I would assume due to the burn ability it would catch fire and act like a flaming weapon.

If the elemental just stepped into the square however, it seems to me like the web would just catch fire and would fit into this category:

"Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away one 5-foot square in 1 round."

In this case the web you stepped into would be burned away in one round.

I don't think you would be able to just charge through any amount of web though, as you aren't attacking it, and it isn't attacking you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Rule only needs to be grey to the GM to get a ruling by the GM. I agree, it would be really nice if PFS had everything FAQed, or wrote things so they didn't need it...

I agree with pretty much everything you said and I get where you're coming from.

I'm referring more to the process of coming to a ruling than the actual ruling. In my mind when I think of a DM houseruling part of the rules, I'm thinking of a DM who is coming to a different conclusion than what the text calls out, because of his/her own assumptions or opinions, or because his/her players ask for something different than whats in the books.

I'm fine with a DM remembering something wrong because no one is perfect, but when a DM chooses to rule differently than whats in the text, even when presented with evidence to the contrary, simply because they feel differently about something, that's what I take issue with.


Ashram wrote:
So... Are people actually going to FAQ something or are they just going to argue needlessly for 10 more pages? It's pretty obvious at this point that neither side is going to magically convince the other of their position.

10 more pages ... psh ... thats not even that many pages :)


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
A house rule is a permanent change to the game rules within a location or domain of a specific GM. PFS GMs can't house rule, but they can resolve grey rules as they see fit on a case by case basis. Functionally, this and a houserule are the same thing if you only attend a single session.

That's a fair point, but I guess in my mind they are different.

For me, a houserule is when a GM takes things other than the text of the rule into account and comes to a decision, and that decision contradicts whats in the text. For example if I had a player who was abusing some rule to the detriment of other players, or like (as far as I am concerned) the case above stating that you can't cast a spell on a creature when the spell says target creature and there are no rules saying to the contrary.

Legitimately ruling on something, or just trying to figure out what the rules as written mean, isn't a houserule as long as the GM is making his or her best effort to follow the text and not add anything onto it.

If a rule is grey enough that there can't be consensus on what the rule actually means when GMs are legitimately trying to determine what the writing equates to (as opposed to adding opinions), then it needs clarification from Paizo in the form of a faq or something similar, with the need being proportional to how much it might screw up a particular player or group in pfs. For example, I doubt lacking rules clarity on falling prone after going unconscious has ever really messed someone up, but having my PFS character only work at half the tables I play at is pretty annoying.


Oakbreaker wrote:
ok what would the CR increase be and any stat bonuses be? I want to have a baddie comeback with this but I don't want to throw balance to the curb. I looked at graveknight and its a plus 2 with ALOT of abilities and a special can't be easily killed option along with stats.

If you want you could use the monster building guidelines found here to help you estimate.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Amrel wrote:
If GM's were allowed to make their own decisions

They are.

Quote:
I could run into the case where a character build wasn't allowed at all at one table, but was fine at another

Happens all the time.

Quote:
Because of that its more or less universally agreed that its better to have some issues last a little longer (until paizo can make a ruling), than give PFS GMs free reign and drive players from the game due to bad experiences.

There is a difference between "free reign" and 'you are breaking the rules if you have characters fall down when they die'.

Quote:
This is why in PFS everyone goes by RAW.
They don't... and frankly, can't given that the term is essentially meaningless. Rules are ALWAYS interpreted. It is impossible for them to not be.

Just because something doesn't happen the way it should doesn't make it right.

GMs are not allowed to alter or houserule in PFS. If a gm does then that needs to be called out.

Table variance, in and of itself, has never helped a player or improved a session. If there is a discrepancy that causes builds to be denied due to table variance, then whatever issue is there needs to be called out and escalated until there is consensus.

There is a difference between "free reign" and the other. But the point is that making rulings that affect players based on "logic" instead of what is called out in the rules leads to table variance, and on the whole table variance isn't a good thing when you switch GMs often. Because of that, GMs in PFS shouldn't make up their own rulings unless something isn't covered by the rules (which isn't the case with this question) or unless its absolutely necessary in order to continue the scenario.

If you let GMs make rulings on things like falling over when you go unconscious, then a GM could by the same logic say that you could take serious injury if you were say, near a cliff or a flight of stairs or a solid object on which you might strike your head. Things of that level of detail are often left out of the rules because you aren't supposed to make rulings on them at all. If a player wants to fall over for thematic reasons then that's fine, but if it starts interacting with game mechanics its problematic.

Additionally, even when there is lots of table variance, RAW is still the best way to go because it gives all players the same foundation. Anything else introduces even more variation which only makes the problem worse.

I apologise for the confusion if there was any regarding my meaning of interpreted. Generally when I mention or read someone say something about rules being interpreted, I generally take it to refer to the process of a GM taking RAW, RAI, and his/her current play group into account when deciding how to rule on a given question or portion of the game. That entire process allows for ambiguity and variance and as a whole doesn't have a place in PFS where players constantly work with different GMs.

To be clear again, I am not referring to a GM using an understanding of the English language and basic logic to determine the meaning of a line of text. That process is relatively free of ambiguity on the part of the reader and is usually fairly easy to prove or disprove because there is already a nearly comprehensive framework directing one on how to determine the meaning of text (as opposed to proving or disproving the impact of a rules decision on a particular play group)

Maybe I need to come up with a better term.

I will also concede that the unconscious example is a silly one, but its meant to be. Its drawing attention to the fact that this is a game, and sometimes the rules can be a little silly, but lots of games have silly rules, and you follow them, because you are deciding to play that game. And if you play a game in a competitive nature, or in an organised fashion, you play by all the rules unless the organisers decide to change them. I don't get to say that a knight moves differently in a chess tournament because I think that a horse moving in an L shape is silly, because that's unfair to everyone else.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Vrischika111 wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Constructs aren't healed by positive energy, though.
and where do you find this rule ?
Right here

Says constructs are NEVER healed by positive energy. And yet the Iron Priest is PFS legal archetype which allows the cleric to channel positive energy to heal constructs....

"Never" might have a different meaning than I think it does.

This is a case of specific trumping general. Generally constructs are never healed by positive energy. However in the specific case of the Iron Priest the channel energy ability is altered such that it works on constructs.

Additionally the faq says the following:

Quote:
Positive energy never heals or harms creatures or objects that are neither living nor undead (such as constructs), and it never directly damages the living or heals undead, barring some special effect that explicitly changes this

You could argue that the bolded part only applies to the second clause, but that seems kind of silly to say that only the negative energy can be changed by new abilities.

Overall though the point is somewhat inconsequential, because infernal healing doesn't call out that it uses positive energy like the cure spell line does, and I'm pretty sure someone brought that up as a nixed option earlier in the thread.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Sangerine wrote:

When you die, you don't go prone as per RAW. Still no rules on fatigue if you skip out on sleep.

In society play, everyone abides by the RAW.

I'd call this an excellent example of satire... but I'm afraid you are serious.

Its not satire, and you seem to be taking his words out of context. The point he's drawing attention to is that things that are logical are not always handled in the rules.

Pathfinder isn't a simulation of reality, its a game, and it isn't going to cover everything. Fortunately the GM is allowed to arbitrate when the rules aren't clear, or when he/she feels like something is out of balance.

Its very important to distinguish between the two because:

A) players are building characters and making decisions based on the actual meaning of the rules, and if the GM isn't interpreting this correctly then this can lead to problems and an overall decrease in enjoyment of the game

B) its the GM's job to inform all players as early as possible when the rules change (a house rule) due to the second case. If a GM isn't correctly interpreting RAW and adding his/her own assumptions then there is a chance that the players won't find out until they have a character or concept built.

Its even more important in PFS because in society play house rules are more or less prohibited in order to give players a consistent experience across GMs. If there is an issue in the rules that a PFS GM feels is hurting the game, then there are proper channels to get that issue officially addressed. If GM's were allowed to make their own decisions I could run into the case where a character build wasn't allowed at all at one table, but was fine at another, which basically means that character is worthless. Because of that its more or less universally agreed that its better to have some issues last a little longer (until paizo can make a ruling), than give PFS GMs free reign and drive players from the game due to bad experiences. This is why in PFS everyone goes by RAW.

In the end, the important thing to always remember is that GMs (both for PFS and home games) come to the Rules forums to figure out the meaning of the rules in relation to their question. Once he or she has a firm understanding of what the text means, they can decide on their own if the intent of the rules matches their meaning, and if their will be issues with their group based on that. If they aren't sure at that point then they can go to the advice forum. If the meaning of the rules in the rules forum gets distorted by the opinions of others, or by any interpretation that doesn't have textual basis, then the ability of any GM or player to make rules decisions is hampered.


Brevick Axeflail wrote:

It's a combination of the new FAQ, the definition of Spell Combat calling out the spell as an off-hand weapon, and Dervish Dance calling out that you can't have a weapon in your off-hand.

This argument existed before the FAQ. The FAQ gives it new weight.

First, the FAQ doesn't give any new weight because it doesn't apply.

I'm not saying that FAQ's don't ever apply to more than just part of its specific case, (though I'm inclined to believe that their scope is limited) but in this instance the FAQ includes a lot of extra text to explicitly state what part of the rules it is applying to, specifically to the line of text that says "You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?"

Second, You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied is not equal to you cannot be carrying a shield or a weapon. The second is far less restrictive than the first, and honestly isn't really a similar requirement. With dervish dance I can hold literally anything in my other hand as long as its not a shield or a weapon. Technically you can even use Dervish Dance with flurry if you had a war priest with the right deity and the crusader flurry feat. Given those two examples the rules text for slashing grace do not simply encompass dervish dance.

Because its less restrictive, and because the FAQ specifically states that its answer is directed only at the rules line "You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?" it isn't covered under the same umbrella ruling.

You can't use slashing grace with spell combat because the rules call out two weapon fighting as something that occupies your hands enough for it not to work, and spell combat is basically TWF. Dervish dance only requires you to not be holding a weapon/shield in your other hand and doesn't make any reference to two weapon fighting or anything similar. Since you aren't holding a weapon in your offhand when you aren't using it to cast, and since you aren't attacking with your scimitar in your main hand when you're casting in spell combat, you aren't ever breaking the rules of dervish dance when you would be striking with the sword.

This may be because dervish dance doesn't require as much of a PC as slashing grace does (in practice), or it may be simply that dervish dance is a much more restrictive feat that gives you much less than slashing grace.

Reasoning aside, if the writers wanted to rule on the whole and include dervish dance, the writers would have given Dervish Dance the exact same errata text that slashing grace has, or at the very least they would have expanded the FAQ to include language like whats in dervish dance, especially considering the FAQ is online and extra words don't cost them anything there.


Brevick Axeflail wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Brevick Axeflail wrote:

But now that we have an FAQ that describes why Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat, I can't see it working any differently for Dervish Dance.

Because, as the PDT have said, FAQ are only relevant for the specific question at hand.

This is not true, and cannot be, given the variety of FAQ responses we have.

** spoiler omitted **

This is a fair point, but whats more important is that Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace have an errata, and the FAQ in question clarifies what the errata means. (unless there is another one that I do not know about)

The FAQ (which asks the following)

Quote:
In the 2nd printing errata, what exactly does it mean that “You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?”

itself isn't saying that you can't use spell combat with things like slashing grace, its directly clarifying the meaning of a very specific line in rules text (which, for posterity sake, is bolded above).

Dervish dance doesn't have that text, and as the faq is directly calling out a specific line in the rules text, and not a general case, it doesn't apply. The writers could have easily added that line to dervish dance, but they didn't, and I find it very hard to believe that was accidental considering the popularity of that ability.

Accident or not, dervish dance only says that you cannot be carrying a weapon or a shield to make use of the bonus, which is significantly less restrictive.

For example, if I started out the round carrying a sword in my off hand, and I dropped it using a free action, any attacks made after I dropped it would be subject to dervish dance. The ability isn't something that stays or goes based on how you start the round, it stays or goes based solely on whats in your other hand.

I could even start the round two weapon fighting and throw my second weapon as an offhand attack and every strike I made after would get dervish dance, since I wasn't carrying a sword or a shield in my off hand at that point.

Regardless of whether or not a spell qualifies as a weapon, with the exception of spells that actually put something into your hand, your hand is only occupied when you are casting and releasing the spell. To me then it would seem that when you are attacking with dervish dance your hand isn't occupied because its not casting, and when you're casting with spell combat you aren't hitting with dervish dance so it doesn't matter.


claudekennilol wrote:
d20pfsrd wrote:

Evolved Summoned Monster

The creatures you summon have evolved to have even greater abilities.

Prerequisite(s): Augment Summoning, Spell Focus (conjuration), ability to cast summon monster I.

Benefit: Each time you cast a summon monster spell, you can select a 1-point evolution other than pounce or reach from those available to a summoner's eidolon. Your summoned creature gains this evolution. The summoned creature must conform to any limitations of the evolution. (For instance, only a creature with a reach of 10 feet or more can have the pull evolution.) Evolutions that grant additional attacks or enhance existing attacks can be applied only to Medium or larger summoned creatures.

If you summon more than one creature with a single spell, only one creature gains this evolution.

Special: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, select an additional 1–point evolution for one of your summoned creatures. If you summon more than one creature, you can choose to apply all the evolutions to a single summoned creature, or split them between the creatures summoned.

If I take this feat twice do I get two 1-point evolutions, or can I get 1 2-point evolution to a single summon?

You still only get the 1 point evolutions.

The wording under special specifically references all evolutions, not all evolution points. Since the earlier rules text specifies that the only evolutions you are allowed to pick are 1 point, you can only choose 1 point evolutions to apply.

-- Ooops, should have refreshed the page


Brevick Axeflail wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Brevick Axeflail wrote:

But now that we have an FAQ that describes why Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat, I can't see it working any differently for Dervish Dance.

Because, as the PDT have said, FAQ are only relevant for the specific question at hand.

This is not true, and cannot be, given the variety of FAQ responses we have.

** spoiler omitted **

This is a fair point, but whats more important is that Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace have an errata, and the FAQ in question clarifies what the errata means. (unless there is another one that I do not know about)

The FAQ itself isn't saying that you can't use spell combat with things similar slashing grace (ie dervish dance). Its specifically addressing the exact wording of the errata for those abilities, specifically the line that says:

Quote:
"you do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or anytime another hand is otherwise occupied."

you aren't allowed to use spell combat. If Dervish dance had the same errata I would think you would be right.

However, dervish dance doesn't have similar wording. It says that you can't be carrying a weapon or a shield to gain the benefits, which is much less broad.

For example, if I was holding a sword in my off hand at the beginning of my turn, but chose to drop it, any attacks made after the drop would be candidates for dervish dance because I wouldn't be holding a weapon or a shield.

Dervish dance works with spell combat for the same reason. Even if you consider a spell a weapon, your hand is only occupied (in almost every case except where the spell actually puts something into your hand) when a spell is being cast and released. After you're done casting the spell your hand is free and dervish dance should work.


As far as I am aware, there isn't any place in the rules where it says that creatures need natural healing to benefit from Fast Healing, especially when the source is magical. Just because Fast Healing says it works like natural healing doesn't mean that it IS natural healing, it doesn't "build off" of a creatures ability to heal itself naturally, it just appears to work in the same way.

If a spell bestows an ability to "creature touched" and does not place any limiting factors (such as specifying that it does not work on undead or constructs or creatures without a CON score) it works on ANY CREATURE.

In this case, the rules stating that "the construct cannot heal damage on its own" don't apply because a spell that heals isn't the creature healing damage on its own, its magic healing the creature.

Additionally, "often can be repaired via exposure to a certain kind of effect (see the creature’s description for details)" does not mean that it can only be healed by effects in its description, it just means that you can find SOME of them there.

In terms of RAI I could see an argument that only spells that repair objects (like make whole) work on constructs, but if a DM ruled that way it would be completely house ruled. In terms of RAW there isn't really any basis that I know of for saying infernal healing doesn't work on constructs.


HalcyonDaze wrote:


Amrel wrote:

The misconception that the Eidolon's Hp counting as temp hp for the player means that its Hp is temporary with respect to itself. This isn't the case.

When the eidolon takes damage, its hp is reduced. Since the player gets to add the eidolon's current Hp as temp hp for itself, its temp hp goes down.

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. I dont think the Outsider itself gets Temporary hit points or anything, it's just that by my read the Ousider's actual HP dont actually ever take damage unless and until something otherwise unrelated happens, specifically that the Summoner uses up the Temporary Hit Points it grants when it is summoned, which then triggers a banishment and is sent back to it's home plane. At that point it would come back at half-HP so it would only be able to grant half the normal amount of HP.

My apologies for the confusion.

While the faq language isn't as clear on this, the actual rules entry for the synthesist archetype state that the synthesist gains the eidolon’s hit points as temporary hit points. This is different than saying that the summoner gains a number of temp hp equal to the eidolon's hp. In the case of the synthesist, the temp hp he/she gets is directly tied to the amount of hp his/her Eidolon has, not just when summoning the eidolon, but for the whole time he/she is wearing the suit.

The thing to take away from this is that the temp hp that the summoner gets is the eidolon's actual hp. When you take damage, the Eidolon actually loses hp. That translates into a loss of temporary hp for the player, because the player gets to add the eidolon's health to his/her own as temp hp.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Amrel wrote:

I believe you get all of them. Unarmed strikes should not prevent you from using your natural attacks. These strikes can come from any part of your body and thus do not require you to attack in such a way that you couldn't use one of your natural attacks.

Regardless of that fact, you actually can strike with the same body part that has a natural attack. The reason that using a weapon keeps you from using a natural attack isn't because you attacked with the weapon, but because you're holding something in your hand. If you attacked with a sword for example, and then as a free action dropped the sword, you would then be free to attack with a claw.

That's actually not true. The rule we've been given is if you've used that limb to attack already. So a wielded weapon attack stops any claws used to wield the weapon, even if you free action drop it.

Reason is you can switch grip as free action. So Greatsword attack, free hold with one hand and attack with claw, free switch hands and attack with other claw. This is what they want to not allow.

Whoops, you're completely right, my bad!


I believe you get all of them. Unarmed strikes should not prevent you from using your natural attacks. These strikes can come from any part of your body and thus do not require you to attack in such a way that you couldn't use one of your natural attacks.

Regardless of that fact, you actually can strike with the same body part that has a natural attack. The reason that using a weapon keeps you from using a natural attack isn't because you attacked with the weapon, but because you're holding something in your hand. If you attacked with a sword for example, and then as a free action dropped the sword, you would then be free to attack with a claw.


The misconception that the Eidolon's Hp counting as temp hp for the player means that its Hp is temporary with respect to itself. This isn't the case.

When the eidolon takes damage, its hp is reduced. Since the player gets to add the Eidolon's current Hp as temp hp for itself, its temp hp goes down.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Alternate Class Features haven't been around since 3.5 and a ruling on this would give us the rules for similar situations in the future, should more be printed for the classes that have similar items.

A clarification should also tell us about how Bloodline Mutations work with the Robes, etc.

Yeah, I agree it would be nice to have something concrete, especially for organized play.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Even if it's "not OP" (which is debatable), I highly doubt it was intended to work that way. It's designed to improve what you already have, not what you currently possess.

I wasn't saying that its not a good combo, I was just saying that you aren't getting it all for 4k. You're getting one of those things for 4k.

In this case dr/3 is definitely the most cost effective one since adamantine armor is expensive. But you can get a +1 to all saves for 1k with a cloak of resistance and a +1 to ac for 2k with an amulet of natural armor. Now you could argue that this bonus would stack with those if you already had them which does make it worth a bit more, but not by much, and especially considering if you were wearing heavy armor and were level 7 you probably picked the DR option anyway if you were worried about cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


But the prerequisite is the class level, not the feature. There is nothing to FAQ.

By that logic it would seem to me (unless I missed something) that the prerequisite for gaining an additional +1 is class level as well. This is because Armor training lists out the levels you gain the +1 at explicitly in addition to saying that you gain an extra +1 at every 4 levels (assuming the rules aren't contradicting themselves). But if that was the case then this item would do nothing, which we also all agree isn't right (I think).

Its true that the ability says at 7th level, and from earlier in rules text we know that the 7th level references levels in the class. So the ability says that at and after your fighter level is 7th, you can substitute AAT.

The item says "The wearer treats his fighter level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of the armor training and bravery class features."

If I'm treating my fighter level as 4 higher than normal for armor training (of which AAT is a part), then any time as a player I have to ask my self, "what level am I with regards to what this ability gives me?" the answer is my level + 4. If I'm third level, whenever I look at this ability I get to say that I'm 7th. There is no additional limiting text put onto that, it applies to all parts. Since neither the additional facet or the item differentiate between actual level and artificial level (it doesn't anywhere else in the rules either as far as I know) a part of the ability that starts working at fighter level 7 would apply.

If the writers didn't want it to apply they would have made Advanced Armor Training a totally separate feature like Spell Recall and improved Spell Recall, or like Bane and Greater Bane.

James Risner wrote:


There is no rules on how this works because AAT didn't exist when the sash was created so there is no RAW.

I get where you're coming from, and at the table I would be ok with a DM saying either thing. But RAW encompasses all rules that currently exist and only considers chronological order when determining precedence.

For example, if some new rule book comes out with a new use for channel energy, you can't go back and say that an item or ability that granted you additional uses of channel doesn't apply because this new use didn't exist then. If you did that then it would be very difficult to build on the game at all. Instead you have to go with the knowledge that when new things come out, the people who write the rules have taken into account what already exists and have adjusted accordingly.

Does that always happen perfectly, no probably not, which is why the DM can decide if he feel's that it should be allowed. But I feel that people generally know that, and when they come to the rules forum they are looking for concrete answers. If they weren't then there's the general advice forum


Weirdo wrote:

I'm not sure how the RAW should be read, but it does seem to make the item significantly better than it was intended to be.

I don't know if I agree, its true that AAT didn't exist when the item was created, so I guess by definition it makes it better than it was initially intended, but I don't see any AAT options that drastically change the players abilities if you got it earlier.

Weirdo wrote:


If a 7th level fighter with Armour Specialization wears a Sash of the War Champion, he gets +1 AC for treating his fighter level as 11.

If he also gets to pick a new AAT as an 11th level fighter would, he can also take Armoured Juggernaut and get 1-3 points of DR/- depending on type of armour worn.

Bravery also increases from +2 to +3, which could mean an extra +1 to all will saves if the character has AWT (armed bravery).

+1 AC, DR 3/- in full plate, and +1 will saves is a really good deal for 4k at level 7.

Its true that he can get those things, but you're blowing it out a little bit. If the answer to the above question is yes, then the player gets one extra thing. You're either getting +1 AC, OR DR 3/-, OR +1 to will saves as an extra AAT with the sash. You can have all three, but you don't get them from the sash


Yogmoth wrote:

Thanks for your answers.

I think i'll go the "be a loyal companion killing and destroying what i tell you to do so" road and cast Quest/Geass every weak and make clear I'm the boss.

I have one last question:

My pet lizard used his soul lock ability on the recently deceased dragon creating a soul gem.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/daemons/cacodae mon

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/zombie-juju-cr- 1

Can i still raise him as a juju zombie ? If so the fact i have his soul in a gem could make him more...obedient.

As for the rules, a soul is required to raise the creature back to life. Raising it to Unlife only requires the body, so you shouldn't have any trouble raising the creature.

As for your second question, it isn't really a rules question but here are my thoughts:

The above is important because it means that the thing you raise isn't actually the "person" who died, but is a shell filled with a new intelligence (albiet an evil one) that in the case of the juju zombie has similar skills and abilities.

Since undead don't require souls, and since the soul itself contains the previous inhabitant of the body, not the new one, the gem is unlikely to give you any sway over it


Firebug wrote:
Alchemical paper cartridges maybe? You cast it on the bullet before assembling the cartridge?

I could see that working, but at the same time I'm not sure how that makes sense for the rules. If it does work, then I guess why not just wear gloves or gauntlets? What counts as "touching" something 0.0


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Most effects that grant you a level increase to a certain feature usually doesn't give you the extra options associated with said feature, only improving the options you already have, unless it says otherwise, as is the case with Dragon Disciple. This is common with Bloodline Powers, Oracle Revelations, and so on.

Can you point out a place in the rules where this gets stated, or a place in the rules where it says that items or abilities that increase your level for the purpose of a class feature do not grant named level dependent abilities within that same class feature? (that they only grant increases to existing ones). If you can then I agree with you and don't bother reading the rest of my post :)

If gaining access to Advanced armor training was listed as a separate ability that you gained at level 7 then I also think you would be right, but as far as I can tell its listed as an additional facet of the same ability (like when you gain an additional +1 when your character level reaches 7th, 11th, and 15th), as opposed to an entirely separate one. The advanced armor training section even lends it self to the idea that its the same ability when says that if you take an archetype that replaces armor training you can't benefit from Advanced armor training.

Abilities like Magus classes' spell recall and improved spell recall are examples of what you are referencing (in the sense that they are separate, and that the second alters the first), so I think the distinction is important.

Just because other abilities or items are more detailed in what they do and don't grant doesn't mean all descriptions need to take that approach as long as they are clear. For example, just because dragon disciple has the text that says that your level gets added when determining what powers the bloodline class feature grants you doesn't mean that an item that said I could treat my level as x levels higher for the purposes of the sorcerer's bloodline class feature wouldn't also grant me additional powers.

Considering the above, and that the item specifically says that your level is 4 higher for the purposes of the ability with no limiting text, to me it seems that means that all parts of the ability are affected.

Regardless of how you want to look at the rules, it seems to me like the item/feature doesn't seem unbalanced, especially considering the fighter class as a whole. Given that fact, and the fact that as far as I am concerned the ability text does seem to support this, or at the least it seems very easy to argue either way, as a DM I would allow it.


This should work. I think the easiest solution (depending on what kind of ammunition you are using) is to enchant your ammunition and then load it with the aid of tools. This would work best with ammunition with a cartridge or some kind of revolver. I think you could use pliers or possibly tweezers, just some way to not touch it.

It shouldn't trigger if you're just holding the gun, and it gives you one hell of a nova round.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It should.

The sash says that your fighter level counts as 4 higher for the purpose of the armor training class feature and Advanced Armor Training is listed as a sub item under the Armor training class feature (as opposed to being listed as a separate feature)


mardaddy wrote:

OK, I'm not going to verify that, I'll take your word for it. You are right. It ends after the 1 day per level requirement.

So in other words - the task has... a beginning and an end.

This was a nice exercise.

Just in case you ever do have to verify the link to the spell text is here

and the specific quote I'm interpreting is here:

Quote:
If the instructions involve some open-ended task that the recipient cannot complete through his own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level.


mardaddy wrote:

You have to define what "task" is.

Generally, a task is something that has a beginning and an end, and a definitive timeframe besides someone's lifetime... so a command that would be almost perpetual like, "avoid not obeying me until I die," or any variation that would not work.

Not true, the spell allows for open ended tasks. In the case where the task is open ended the spell lasts a day per level.


Diego Rossi wrote:

If the the undead must ask itself what its master intent was in that situation, most of the time it would stay inactive, trying to second guess its master while having a very different mindset (unless the master is a undead of a kind similar to it).

Geas/Quest don't give any special form of communication or insight in the caster motivations or goals.and you have the usual problem with wishes, they can be thwarted, or the the undead can listen for any comment that can be considered a wish.

"What a nice jewel" is enough for "My master want that jewel, I must slay the current possessor and give it to him."
"Give me some water" for "My master is thirsty, I should slay all the party members so he has enough water to sate himself."

Those last two examples again involve jumping to conclusions. If a creature is intelligent and/or has some sort of wisdom, and they have some understanding of what kind of person the caster is, they would be able to make the same deductions that you and I would. That unless the player specifically asks to murder something for something else, its very likely that the masters wishes don't involve that murder. Regardless, if this sort of thing starts to happen all the player has to do is inform the creature that the course of action it was taking was against its intent. For example, the player could tell it not to attack others unless instructed to do so, and so on and so forth.

You are correct if the creature is incapable of understanding the mindset of its master, but just being undead doesn't make the creature so utterly alien in its ability to understand the mindset of a player character.

Its also true that there might be a learning period if the zombie retains no memories, but if the creature is intelligent it should be able to learn the general wants and wishes of its master.

It may be such that you can't give the creature such open ended commands, but you can still give them a command. Worst case scenario you quest the creature with obeying your commands to the best of its ability (which is the same thing that the control undead does).

In the end it all really depends on you GM. If he/she wants to have the undead break out, he/she will, because he/she will come up with a contrived excuse. So you should talk to you GM to make sure that he's ok with you doing this. If your GM isn't, then don't do it.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

Intent of party A is to party B a subjective determination filtered through party B's own prejudices and views. It doesn't help. B just had to be able to convince himself, not read A's mind.

Again I think it depends on the creatures intelligence and the amount of input.

With a short conversation the player could outline his goals and what his wishes are for his companion. As a GM I would even allow an intelligence or wisdom check to determine if the player communicates clearly in such a way that there is very little room for misunderstanding.

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:


"He must have intended that I kill him, because anyone putting a Geas on me clearly has a death wish!" is a perfectly valid interpretive framework.

I agree that interpretation is subjective, but there is a difference between being subjective and jumping to conclusions. Anything with a reasonable intelligence and/or wisdom score (which young dragons have better than average) is going to quickly realize what the caster likely rationally wishes. A creature trying to convince himself otherwise would be going against the wishes of the caster, and would trip the geas.

The exception would be if the creature was insane in some way


Saethori wrote:
Amrel wrote:


If he tells his zombie to capture someone and not kill that person because he wants them alive and unharmed, an evil intelligent creature wouldn't misunderstand the intent. The creature might want to do something different, but the compulsion makes that a non issue.
They would certainly understand the intent. But the spell doesn't go by intent, it goes by instructions.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree that you have to be careful with your wording. But I disagree when you say the spell doesn't go by intent.

If the Geas you've given does involve intent then the spell compels them to include intent as their intelligence level permits them to understand.

For example, say that I cast the spell and gave the following open ended task: "undead, I charge you with refraining from any course of activity, including inactivity, that would be against my wishes or contrary to the intent of my commands."

If I was to do that, then Geas would force the creature to, before taking any action, always ask itself if whatever it was or wasn't doing was against the wishes of the caster or contrary to the intent of of the casters commands.

If the answer to the above question was yes, the undead would have to change its actions such that they were in line with the wishes of the caster or not contrary to the intent of the caster's commands.

As a side note, one might consider adding an order of preference between the two cases (wishes vs command intent) in case the caster was compelled in some obvious way to issue a command that would be against his wishes.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Wishes and intent of the caster, as interpreted by a juju zombie, I.e a evil undead? It seem a recipe for disaster unless you want death and mayhem.

I think that depends entirely on the intelligence of the zombie. If the creature is intelligent, then it should be able to interpret the intent of the caster regardless of its alignment. If a good character told an evil character to do something, the fact that the second character was evil wouldn't change his or her ability to understand the intent of another person as long as they are given enough context by whoever issues the command.

If he tells his zombie to capture someone and not kill that person because he wants them alive and unharmed, an evil intelligent creature wouldn't misunderstand the intent. The creature might want to do something different, but the compulsion makes that a non issue.

Diego Rossi wrote:


"Obey my orders." depend on me issuing orders and is decidedly open ended.

I thought that's what the poster was trying to do, that is, enslave a monster using the spell for a day per level. If he/she is trying to do it permanently, then that wouldn't work because it is open ended.


Saethori wrote:
I can't really comment on the rest, but... Geas compels the target to either do a certain task, or refrain from an activity. While "don't attack people" works as an action you can demand they refrain from, "obey my commands" is not a task.

True, but I think it depends more on the wording. I think loyally serving someone or something could be a task. I also think that disobeying direct orders issued by the caster, or acting against the wishes and intent of the caster counts as a course of activity (and as such one could have the target refrain from those actions)


You would just have a wight according to the spell. In this case it might actually be better to create a juju zombie depending on what that keeps.

As for geas it should work on the undead as long as you use Threnodic spell.

In regards to the instructions, Geas says that it "places a magical command on a creature to carry out some service or to refrain from some action or course of activity, as desired by you." So you could always say that they must refrain from not following your commands as a course of activity.

Be aware though, it also says "A clever recipient can subvert some instructions," so you just want to be careful with your wording. Normally I try to include something in my command about following my commands as I intended them to be followed, or in the spirit in which they were given, to try to cover cases where a geas'ed creature would twist my words.

In the end though, talk with your GM about all of this. If he isn't ok with it or if it unbalances the game he will find a way to break your creature out from under your control and all the clever wording in the world won't help you.


I would say that the warding is ended for any creatures near you, or in combat with you. I know it doesn't say that, but it seems crazy that you would lose most of the usefulness of a 6k item for one attack.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Amrel wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:

Not really legal after Ultimate Intrigue:

Ultimate Intrigue wrote:
Teleport: Teleport is like dimension door, but adds considerably to the range and versatility. However, it is important to note that teleport has several special limitations built into the spell. For one thing, the caster needs to know both the layout of the destination as well as where it is physically located. If the caster has managed to use divinations to see the layout of a secret hideout, it still won't do any good unless she knows where it is. Second, areas of strong physical and magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. Many GMs forget this important component, which actually gives the villain a good in-game reason to establish a secret volcano lair or build her fortress on a ley line. This advice applies equally well to greater teleport, although the results of a failed teleportation are less dire.

I'm not sure what in that text makes it not legal? The text does say that teleport is like dimension door, but it doesn't say that it is dimension door, or that the specific penalty of not being able to act after casting applies.

Did I miss something?

I think they were just talking about the "scry and fry" tactic not being legal.

In reality "scry and fry" is simply more complicated to set it up and a bit less efficient than what a good number of people assumed.

You can do it, but it isn't a guaranteed thing.

Oh, so you're getting at the fact that its more difficult to locate the place you actually need to teleport too based on how hard it is to locate it.

Is there anywhere that the spell has been errata'ed to take that into account? I don't personally know of any, and it sucks to think that if I don't buy/read that book I'm wrong in the rules, as all I have to go on is that teleport still lists the viewed once category as "a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying."


MeanMutton wrote:

Not really legal after Ultimate Intrigue:

Ultimate Intrigue wrote:
Teleport: Teleport is like dimension door, but adds considerably to the range and versatility. However, it is important to note that teleport has several special limitations built into the spell. For one thing, the caster needs to know both the layout of the destination as well as where it is physically located. If the caster has managed to use divinations to see the layout of a secret hideout, it still won't do any good unless she knows where it is. Second, areas of strong physical and magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible. Many GMs forget this important component, which actually gives the villain a good in-game reason to establish a secret volcano lair or build her fortress on a ley line. This advice applies equally well to greater teleport, although the results of a failed teleportation are less dire.

I'm not sure what in that text makes it not legal? The text does say that teleport is like dimension door, but it doesn't say that it is dimension door, or that the specific penalty of not being able to act after casting applies.

Did I miss something?


Scavenger1977 wrote:

@Nord>> That's silly, the FAQ part... just hire a bunch of mid-level fighter thug goons, scry on the intended target and then cast haste in the round before and then full-attack ambush the living daylights out of a single target you'd like to assasinate then, who's flat footed, cause, surprise round?

Bad FAQ, abusive as hell

I mean, that's the whole concept of scry an die.

I don't think its that abusive. In a surprise round you can only take a standard or a move (no full attack). Additionally since everyone that came with you would keep their relative positions, its going to be hard to have more than a few people get an attack in unless everyone has reach weapons.

Plus if you're already casting scry, you're probably close to being able to cast teleport, which as far as I am aware, doesn't have the action restriction.

And there are lots of spells that prevent teleportation and dimension door so it wouldn't be too hard to defend against it as a dm.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Composite armors

There is a whole section in ultimate combat. It is called piecemeal armor iirc.

Just Fyi, Piecemeal armor is found here .

Its an alternate armor system that breaks armor into components and lets you mix and match. Overall its pretty neat, and there are some great combinations you can make. That being said, it doesn't actually let you create new kinds of armor that aren't on your list, but because of the many different combinations it may get you to what kind of look and feel that you want.


I don't believe anything like that exists for armor, but to be fair armor doesn't have as many variable properties as weapons do. In this instance I think it really depends on what you want to do.

As a GM in almost every case I would let a player pick a type of armor close to what they wanted and just give it whatever name/appearance he/she wanted. My reasoning is that the armor options are already fairly balanced in terms of weight, weight class, movement, ac, max dex, and spell failure. Anything that strays too far from the table is likely to be overpowered (or possibly under powered). If a player really wanted to tweak something badly I would make sure that whatever they adjusted would be balanced out somewhere else (for example, if the player wanted a higher than normal ac, I might reduce movement or max dex)

If a player wanted to add some kind of special property, depending on the property, I would consider having it be a flat magical enchantment, a special material, or an addition (like armor spikes).

Out of curiosity, what are you looking to do?


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

The spell does not say that as a shadow you keep your spell casting abilities so I would not allow you to do so.

MDC

I would think that the spell would specify if you didn't. You don't lose the ability to cast when you use similar abilities such as magic jar or when you're polymorphed (just the ability to perform verbal/somatic components depending on your form), and this doesn't seem to be too far thematically and mechanically from that.

Additionally, while its always the GM's call, I would recommend considering the fact that the spell also goes so far as to list the things you gain from the transformation, but does not say you lose anything.

I would think that if you were to lose something so great as your entire ability to cast spells (especially from casting a 4th level spell) it would mention it.

1 to 50 of 259 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>